Like how I gestured in my top-level comment, are we being an economic analysis or seeming an economic analysis. I regard the efforts of Frontier Labs with suspicion because a lot of their marketing efforts around "Artificial Intelligence" appear (to me) as acquisitive and power hungry to a fault: they are all consuming in that every author on this paper has a superscript 1 to denote association with OpenAI.

When I read artifacts by Frontier Labs I notice a trend towards deteriorating lexicographic architecture. Like how a textbook or larger tomb is constructed for the reader to navigate.

Instead, now I see continuous monotonic text. It’s as if the author expects us to chuck the artifact into an LLM in order for it to inform us of meaning.

Whenever I see these Frontier Labs "publish a paper" on ArXiv.org the phrase Esse Quam Videri strides past my mind—is this genuine progress or merely a marketing metric for their stakeholders?

- https://fortune.com/2025/10/08/deutsche-bank-and-jeffrey-eps...

- https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

Plainly, based on the current ground trodded and the trajectory laid out by the frontier AI labs, I do not have concrete evidence/proof of sentience having emerged from LLM-based software tools as of June 4 2026 nor do I expect it to happen in the future based on my understanding and observations of this technology. I'm not excluding the possibility but wielding skepticism. I am open to being proven wrong with new discoveries.

Which is why (to return to my lashing of the dead horse) I don't see OP's post as worthwhile. Their post reiterates a point that is already valid (the prior art) with no new substantial discovery. Which is why "unoriginal and pointless" is apt, a novel idea was not presented; it's just some vain virtue signaling.

So I still disagree with your elucidated point (as you end with "which is valid"): the OP author is using prior art fiction to bolster their opinion of LLM-based software tools as being a possible vector of sentience, not to disarm our chauvinism like the original author intended. If OP wanted to make that point, they could have written a critical essay instead of farming out their thoughts as tokens.

But still, I look forward to reading the book you suggested to understand and appreciate your perspective more.

My original comment (roughly "there's no intelligence in this article, nor sentience in LLMs") is in response to the blog post's buried lede (that the cumulative activity of LLMs has accrued to a weight of "AGI is around the corner" or "there is artificial consciousness in this matrix").

To be clear, I'm not saying LLMs are useless or a wrong direction in development of "AI," but rather it's the Fool's Gold for the path towards AGI, the pursuit of the academic field of Artificial Intelligence research. A research that I've been abreast of for years before this new age of language models that has made everyone with a keyboard an arm chair expert.

Also, thank you for the book recommendation, it's on my list! :)

> Weights helped me draft and proof this story.

Any HN reader here now, I encourage you to read the original ( https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.s... ) in one sitting, go about your day, then read it again. Maybe make some notes on personal critical questions.

Now read the post's topic again ( https://maxleiter.com/blog/weights ) and reflect on the prior fact that weights helped [the author] draft and proof this story.

My reaction (and I'm sorry that it is harsh according to some) is that there is no intelligence found in either the author nor their tool. This is extreme navel gazing, based in science fiction, wanting (wishing) to believe those stories to be true.

I'm skeptical of AI sentience because we must do our due diligence, not because it's impossible. Skepticism is the only respectful approach because to grant sentience is a step away from granting rights.

I’m not going to keep engaging with someone who makes wild assumptions about my stance and accuses me of lying, ignorance, and evil. I was really hoping for video proof; I know Elon is the type of guy to hold that high with all that SpaceX footage.

Good day sir :)

I've driven a Tesla on and off for about 4 years, and I'm thankful to never do so again.

> death trap

https://apnews.com/article/tesla-crash-doors-musk-regulators...

> It's literally been rated the safest car in America since it's inception.

I'm locating our disconnect a bit better: something can be marked "safest car" for road tests but still be rife with issues, like its obnoxious UI choices, etc.

https://www.tesladeaths.com

We can arbitrate about what "self-driving success" means until the cows come home, but my point is I've seen a lot of self-driving failures from the Teslas I've witnessed in person.

It's not insane at all for humans to alter their behavior with a tool: you grip a hammer or a gun a certain way because you learned not to hold it backwards. If you observe a child playing with a serious tool, like scissors, as if it were a doll, you'd immediately course correct the child and educate how to re-approach the topic. But that is because an adult with prior knowledge observed the situation prior to an accident, so rules are defined.

This blog's suggested rules are exactly the sort of method to aid in insulation from harm.

> I'm guessing these are the same type of people who sometimes seems to fall in love with LLMs, for better or worse. Really strange to see, and I wonder where people get the idea from that something like that above could really work.

It's a fetishistic cargo-cult rooted in Peter Thiel's 2AM hot tub party. I still believe the LLM approach won't yield true AGI; despite the very real applications, the majority signal is noise.